Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Oldmike wrote:
With the way some are swing this a ultra librarian concave is bared from joining a ultra CAD squad using a drop pod
As they are different formations some claimed they are BB even though they are the same faction

What it does limit is people farming psychic powers by bringing ultra conclave + tiggy w/ any other space marine chapter..

I think the intention is that:

Space Marines with the same CT are one army and share as if they were one detachment. Especially if they actually are (eg Gladius).
Space Marines with different CTs are Battlebrothers to each other, including the restrictions that will bring.

At least that's HIWPI now. If Tiggy and the boys want to ride a drop pod they better find one in smurf colours or they're going to land real hard after the orbital insertion maneuver.

nekooni wrote:
I think the intention is that:

Space Marines with the same CT are one army and share as if they were one detachment. Especially if they actually are (eg Gladius).
Space Marines with different CTs are Battlebrothers to each other, including the restrictions that will bring.

At least that's HIWPI now. If Tiggy and the boys want to ride a drop pod they better find one in smurf colours or they're going to land real hard after the orbital insertion maneuver.

That's more restrictive than anything actually stated for this situation.

Different CTs are not currently listed as being Battle Brothers to each other. With one Forgeworld exception, they are all the same Faction. Just because different CTs can be in an Allied Detachment to a Codex Warlord, does not make them listed as Battle Brothers to each other. All it is doing is overriding the restriction listed in the Allied Detachment with a different one.

 Charistoph wrote:

nekooni wrote:
I think the intention is that:

Space Marines with the same CT are one army and share as if they were one detachment. Especially if they actually are (eg Gladius).
Space Marines with different CTs are Battlebrothers to each other, including the restrictions that will bring.

At least that's HIWPI now. If Tiggy and the boys want to ride a drop pod they better find one in smurf colours or they're going to land real hard after the orbital insertion maneuver.

That's more restrictive than anything actually stated for this situation.

Different CTs are not currently listed as being Battle Brothers to each other. With one Forgeworld exception, they are all the same Faction. Just because different CTs can be in an Allied Detachment to a Codex Warlord, does not make them listed as Battle Brothers to each other. All it is doing is overriding the restriction listed in the Allied Detachment with a different one.

Which is why I'm saying that it is what "I think the intention is". and that "it's HIWPI".

If my Chapter doesn't loan it's Drop Pod to an Inquisitor or a Rhino to Imperial Guardsmen, I'm not convinced the intention is for different Chapters to share them either. Again - and I'm not sure how I could make that clearer: What I think the RAI is & HIWPI.

I think different chapter tactic = battle brother, not same faction as well. Get your own damn drop pod.

Martel732 wrote:
I think different chapter tactic = battle brother, not same faction as well. Get your own damn drop pod.

Great, can we now stick to the rules, please?

"You can include models from any number of different Factions in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."
- BRB, ALLIES, emphasis mine

"The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army."
- BRB, LEVELS OF ALLIANCE, emphasis mine

"Any Detachment with Space Marines Faction can be an XXX Detachment (...) An XXX Detachment retains the Space Marines Faction and is treated as a Space Marines Detachment (...)"
- Angels of Death Supplement, Chapter Detachments, where XXX = Chapter Name

Ultramarine Librarian is Space Marines Faction model
White Scars Drop Pod is Space Marines Faction model

They both are the same Faction models. There are no rules that allow you to use Allies Matrix at all.

 danyboy wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think different chapter tactic = battle brother, not same faction as well. Get your own damn drop pod.

Great, can we now stick to the rules, please?

"You can include models from any number of different Factions in the same army if you wish. Irrespective of the method you use to choose your army, this section tells you how models from different Factions fight alongside each other."
- BRB, ALLIES, emphasis mine

"The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army."
- BRB, LEVELS OF ALLIANCE, emphasis mine

"Any Detachment with Space Marines Faction can be an XXX Detachment (...) An XXX Detachment retains the Space Marines Faction and is treated as a Space Marines Detachment (...)"
- Angels of Death Supplement, Chapter Detachments, where XXX = Chapter Name

Ultramarine Librarian is Space Marines Faction model
White Scars Drop Pod is Space Marines Faction model

They both are the same Faction models. There are no rules that allow you to use Allies Matrix at all.

RAW is pretty clear, I agree. Space Marines are Space Marines, Chapter Tactics are just a special rule of Space Marines which interacts in a unique way with the Allied Detachment, but that's it.

RAW is clear, but the new FAQ pretty much ignores RAW in this instance, hence the discussion.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
RAW is clear, but the new FAQ pretty much ignores RAW in this instance, hence the discussion.

SJ

But the new draft FAQ doesn't ignore much RAW in this instance. It just says that battle brothers can no longer start embarked on each other's transports. So no GK Termies in an AM chimera during deployment.

The question is whether SM treat different chapters as being from the same faction, or if they treat each other as "allies" and thus are battle brothers. But the wording from the BRB and from SM Codex and Angels of Death make it somewhat clear that regardless of chapter tactics, SM treat each other as the same faction. So the FAQ ruling doesn't ignore RAW it simply DOESNT apply here as the two detachments would be part of the same faction. Now if one detachment had a separate codex (BA, SW, DA, etc) AND no mention of being a SM faction and/or has its own entry in the ally matrix, then their transports would fall under Battle Brother's rules for another SM detachment.

So IMO RAW, I can't put a GK Libby in a drop pod with some smurf marines, but there is no problem with a charamander captain riding in with them.

mch21689 wrote:
But the new draft FAQ doesn't ignore much RAW in this instance. It just says that battle brothers can no longer start embarked on each other's transports. So no GK Termies in an AM chimera during deployment.

And (aside from the Dedicated Transport) where in the rulebook does it state that Battle Brothers cannot Embark on a Transport during Deployment, any more than a unit from the same Faction?

 Ratius wrote:
So if I have an Eldar CAD with fire dragons and an allied detach with some serpents the FDs cant start in the serpents?

Factions cannot ally with themselves.

mch21689 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
RAW is clear, but the new FAQ pretty much ignores RAW in this instance, hence the discussion.

SJ

But the new draft FAQ doesn't ignore much RAW in this instance. It just says that battle brothers can no longer start embarked on each other's transports. So no GK Termies in an AM chimera during deployment.

The BRB grants permission for battle brothers to be embarked on non-dedicated allied transports. The FAQ changes that by saying they can't, which is pretty much the definition of ignoring RAW.

SJ

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
So if I have an Eldar CAD with fire dragons and an allied detach with some serpents the FDs cant start in the serpents?

Factions cannot ally with themselves.

Unless he has a third detachment of a different faction containing his warlord.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
So if I have an Eldar CAD with fire dragons and an allied detach with some serpents the FDs cant start in the serpents?

Factions cannot ally with themselves.

Unless he has a third detachment of a different faction containing his warlord.

No... Ally rules are for determining the interactions between units of different Factions (mostly). Detachments are not in consideration (mostly).

Note: I say mostly because there are a couple very specific cases where two units are from the same Faction book, but still treat certain cases as something other than Faction. See the Forgeworld Chapter Traits for the Charcadons for such an example.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
So if I have an Eldar CAD with fire dragons and an allied detach with some serpents the FDs cant start in the serpents?

Factions cannot ally with themselves.

You may not have an Allied Detachment which has the same faction as your primary detachment, if that's what you meant ?

Different space marine chapters must be taken as allied detachments which use the battle brothers rules:

"Allied detachments: if your primary detachment has the space marines faction, you can take an allied detachment (see warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines faction as long as it is drawn from a different chapter than your primary detachment" (Codex: Space Marines, p. 189, 7th edition).

This was more explicit in the 6th edition codex:

"Allies: A Space Marine detachment chosen from this codex that has one set of chapter tactics may ally with another space marine detachment chosen from this codex that has a different set of chapter tactics (Ultramarines and Raven Guard, for example). For the purposes of the Allies rules, these detachments are treated as if they were chosen from two different codexes and are treated as battle brothers" (p. 77).

Traditio wrote:
Different space marine chapters must be taken as allied detachments which use the battle brothers rules:

"Allied detachments: if your primary detachment has the space marines faction, you can take an allied detachment (see warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines faction as long as it is drawn from a different chapter than your primary detachment" (Codex: Space Marines, p. 189, 7th edition).

Not "must", but "can". In this specific case, they are discussing the actual detachment called "allied detachment".

I can have two Demi-Companies with two different Chapter Tactics, but they wouldn't be in the same Gladius.

They still are not allied to each other, though, even in an Allied Detachment.

 Charistoph wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Different space marine chapters must be taken as allied detachments which use the battle brothers rules:

"Allied detachments: if your primary detachment has the space marines faction, you can take an allied detachment (see warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines faction as long as it is drawn from a different chapter than your primary detachment" (Codex: Space Marines, p. 189, 7th edition).

Not "must", but "can". In this specific case, they are discussing the actual detachment called "allied detachment".

I can have two Demi-Companies with two different Chapter Tactics, but they wouldn't be in the same Gladius.

They still are not allied to each other, though, even in an Allied Detachment.

Absolutely not. Again, from 6th edition codex:

"Note that you may field models from two different chapters that have the same chapter tactics...in the same detachment. These chapters are so closely affiliated that they count as a single army on the battle field" (p. 77).

What this implies is that different chapter detachments do not constitute a single army. Therefore, allies.

Again, the language of p. 189 of the 7th ed codex strongly implies this.

Traditio wrote:

Absolutely not. Again, from 6th edition codex:

"Note that you may field models from two different chapters that have the same chapter tactics...in the same detachment. These chapters are so closely affiliated that they count as a single army on the battle field" (p. 77).

What this implies is that different chapter detachments do not constitute a single army. Therefore, allies.

Again, the language of p. 189 of the 7th ed codex strongly implies this.

Different codex and different detachment definitions. Codex Space Marines 6th Edition is no longer pertinent to resolving this discussion. The current codex edition is actually more explicit and proper to how detachments work with 7th edition then the 6th edition codex. The 6th Edition codex is operating on the assumption that there are only two different detachments available to an army in the game, because that is the standard that existed at the time.

The current codex recognizes that there are numerous possible detachments representing numerous Factions and can be of any design. The current codex addresses the Allied Detachment ONLY. It is even capitalized in that section on Chapter Tactics.

 Charistoph wrote:

Traditio wrote:

Absolutely not. Again, from 6th edition codex:

"Note that you may field models from two different chapters that have the same chapter tactics...in the same detachment. These chapters are so closely affiliated that they count as a single army on the battle field" (p. 77).

What this implies is that different chapter detachments do not constitute a single army. Therefore, allies.

Again, the language of p. 189 of the 7th ed codex strongly implies this.

Different codex and different detachment definitions. Codex Space Marines 6th Edition is no longer pertinent to resolving this discussion. The current codex edition is actually more explicit and proper to how detachments work with 7th edition then the 6th edition codex. The 6th Edition codex is operating on the assumption that there are only two different detachments available to an army in the game, because that is the standard that existed at the time.

The current codex recognizes that there are numerous possible detachments representing numerous Factions and can be of any design. The current codex addresses the Allied Detachment ONLY. It is even capitalized in that section on Chapter Tactics.

Somebody should submit the question to GW for FAQ. I'm sure that my opinion will be vindicated, if it's answered. Again.

Are you really now saying your interpretation is always right just because a few of GW's FaQ answers were the same as your interpretation against the RaW?

Traditio wrote:
Somebody should submit the question to GW for FAQ. I'm sure that my opinion will be vindicated, if it's answered. Again.

You mean your opinion that the standard used in an old codex should supersede the standard used in the current codex?

Should I then have you use your Storm Shields as they were in 3rd and 4th Edition with their 4+ Invul only available in Assault, instead of the 3++ all the time they are treated today? Should your Rhinos only have the Role of Dedicated Transport instead of Fast Attack now?

 Charistoph wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Somebody should submit the question to GW for FAQ. I'm sure that my opinion will be vindicated, if it's answered. Again.

You mean your opinion that the standard used in an old codex should supersede the standard used in the current codex?

Should I then have you use your Storm Shields as they were in 3rd and 4th Edition with their 4+ Invul only available in Assault, instead of the 3++ all the time they are treated today? Should your Rhinos only have the Role of Dedicated Transport instead of Fast Attack now?

RAI is perfectly clear both in 6th and 7th. Black Templar and Ultramarines no more are the same "faction" than blood angels and space wolves belong to the same "faction." Yes, black templar and ultramarines have rules in the same codex, but the difference in chapter tactics indicates a difference of factions. Ultramarines + ravenguard =/= a single coherent army. Those are two completely different chapters, and, as such, constitute two separate, distinct, independent fighting forces.

You can argue about RAW if you want, but again, I'll simply recommend that you submit the question for GW FAQ.

If they bother to answer the question, I'll enjoy the occasion for yet more self-congratulatory smugness.

What you completely fail to understand is that most people on this board argue the rules as written. That's something you can do without input from GW and it doesn't rely on what we think GW might want us to do. Sure, RAI has always been a thing but you can nev let be sure it is actually what they wanted unless they answer in a FAQ.

An old Edition is never an indicator, it could always be a deliberate change. And the Allied Detachment is a specific detachment.
And let's not forget that the whole Battle brothers and transport thing is clearly an errata , a rule change, and not just a clarification . No-one I know ever argued it the way GW now ruled it.

You present your interpretation as 'fact' and based on the rules , which it isn't. It's an interpretation that might or might not be what GW intended.
The rules as written on this are clear, the rules as intended are decently clear, too - but literally the opposite of the written ones.

All that's left to do until a FAQ covers it is decide whether you want to play RAW or RAI.

nekooni wrote:
What you completely fail to understand is that most people on this board argue the rules as written. That's something you can do without input from GW and it doesn't rely on what we think GW might want us to do. Sure, RAI has always been a thing but you can nev let be sure it is actually what they wanted unless they answer in a FAQ.

An old Edition is never an indicator, it could always be a deliberate change. And the Allied Detachment is a specific detachment.
And let's not forget that the whole Battle brothers and transport thing is clearly an errata , a rule change, and not just a clarification . No-one I know ever argued it the way GW now ruled it.

You present your interpretation as 'fact' and based on the rules , which it isn't. It's an interpretation that might or might not be what GW intended.
The rules as written on this are clear, the rules as intended are decently clear, too - but literally the opposite of the written ones.

All that's left to do until a FAQ covers it is decide whether you want to play RAW or RAI.

To my mind, the issue has already been settled in the FAQ. As GW themselves said in the FAQ: "We have to use a little common sense here."

Instead of pedantic grammatical analysis and rules lawyering, what's called for is a general sense of what the rules are trying to effect, a general idea of what GW had in mind.

Ultramarines and ravenguard are not the same army. They are not intended to be the same army. Allies means "different (i.e., not the same) armies working together." GW has made itself abundantly clear in expressing this in the 6th and 7th edition codices. That's why you can't use Pedro Kantor as the HQ in an ultramarines detachment, or even an imperial fists detachment, for that matter.

And even discounting the 6th edition codex (which explicitly asserts that different chapters are related to each other as battle brothers), p. 189 of the 7th ed codex speaks volumes to me: "All models in the same detachment or formation must be drawn from the same chapter."

Why? Because different chapter = different army.

Again, in the words of GW:

"You have to use a little common sense."

Traditio wrote:
RAI is perfectly clear both in 6th and 7th. Black Templar and Ultramarines no more are the same "faction" than blood angels and space wolves belong to the same "faction." Yes, black templar and ultramarines have rules in the same codex, but the difference in chapter tactics indicates a difference of factions. Ultramarines + ravenguard =/= a single coherent army. Those are two completely different chapters, and, as such, constitute two separate, distinct, independent fighting forces.

You can argue about RAW if you want, but again, I'll simply recommend that you submit the question for GW FAQ.

If they bother to answer the question, I'll enjoy the occasion for yet more self-congratulatory smugness.

RAI and RAW in 6th had Black Templars and Ultramarines having separate positions on the Ally Chart, even when the 6th Edition codex came out. Salamanders and Ultramarines were in the same position on the Ally Chart, though, but still could field Allied Detachments to each other as Battle Brothers.

RAW states that the Chapter Tactics in the current codex that only address the specifically named "Allied Detachment", complete as a proper noun, as being affected by the Chapter Tactics rules. No mention of Battle Brothers or any other level of alliance is mentioned in this case, and no matter the Chapter Tactics, the Faction symbol on the Datasheet does not change. There is only one exception to this that I know of, and that is the Forgeworld Chapter Tactic for the Charcadons. This is actually quite clear.

With such a drastic change wording, I can only assume that RAI also coincides with what is written as well. I think you need to get your head out of 6th Edition, both rulebook and codex. Any FAQ answer will (supposedly) be based on current concepts (or ones in testing).

And since you are so bugged by it, why do you not submit the question instead of insisting others do it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Why? Because different chapter = different army.

Again, in the words of GW:

"You have to use a little common sense."

No where does it currently state or suggest a different chapter is a different army, unless their Faction symbols are different (as in the case of the Angels and Wolves).

"You have to use a little common sense."

And please be careful of calling someone pedantic and rules lawyering. It can be considered offensive.

Charistoph wrote:RAI and RAW in 6th had Black Templars and Ultramarines having separate positions on the Ally Chart, even when the 6th Edition codex came out. Salamanders and Ultramarines were in the same position on the Ally Chart, though, but still could field Allied Detachments to each other as Battle Brothers.

RAW states that the Chapter Tactics in the current codex that only address the specifically named "Allied Detachment", complete as a proper noun, as being affected by the Chapter Tactics rules. No mention of Battle Brothers or any other level of alliance is mentioned in this case, and no matter the Chapter Tactics, the Faction symbol on the Datasheet does not change. There is only one exception to this that I know of, and that is the Forgeworld Chapter Tactic for the Charcadons. This is actually quite clear.

With such a drastic change wording, I can only assume that RAI also coincides with what is written as well. I think you need to get your head out of 6th Edition, both rulebook and codex. Any FAQ answer will (supposedly) be based on current concepts (or ones in testing).

And since you are so bugged by it, why do you not submit the question instead of insisting others do it?

Charistoph:

P. 189 of the current codex flat out says that different SM chapters can ally with each other in a given army, but that the same chapter cannot ally with itself.

Therefore, different chapters = different armies = different factions.

It's that simple.

Again: "We need to use a little common sense."

Traditio wrote:

Charistoph wrote:RAI and RAW in 6th had Black Templars and Ultramarines having separate positions on the Ally Chart, even when the 6th Edition codex came out. Salamanders and Ultramarines were in the same position on the Ally Chart, though, but still could field Allied Detachments to each other as Battle Brothers.

RAW states that the Chapter Tactics in the current codex that only address the specifically named "Allied Detachment", complete as a proper noun, as being affected by the Chapter Tactics rules. No mention of Battle Brothers or any other level of alliance is mentioned in this case, and no matter the Chapter Tactics, the Faction symbol on the Datasheet does not change. There is only one exception to this that I know of, and that is the Forgeworld Chapter Tactic for the Charcadons. This is actually quite clear.

With such a drastic change wording, I can only assume that RAI also coincides with what is written as well. I think you need to get your head out of 6th Edition, both rulebook and codex. Any FAQ answer will (supposedly) be based on current concepts (or ones in testing).

And since you are so bugged by it, why do you not submit the question instead of insisting others do it?

Charistoph:

P. 189 of the current codex flat out says that different SM chapters can ally with each other in a given army, but that the same chapter cannot ally with itself.

Therefore, different chapters = different armies = different factions.

It's that simple.

Again: "We need to use a little common sense."

See, that's the point I was trying to make: No, the rulebook doesn't say what you claim it does.

You've misquoted the rule by using "allied detachment" instead of "Allied Detachment" which is clearly, unmistakenly refering to the detachment called "Allied Detachment" and how it interacts with other detachments. It doesn't speak of e.g. two Combined Arms Detachments that are allied to each other. that's like claiming that, since you cannot use an "Allied Detachment" with the same faction as the Combined Arms Detachment, you cannot have two Combined Arms Detachments of the same Chapter. That's the only logical conclusion to interpreting it the way you do (totally ignoring the capital letters in "Allied Detachment"), and saying "no, you cannot have two detachments of the same chapter" really doesn't say "common sense" to me.

That being said I agree that the RAI - based on what they changed in the "FAQ"/Errata - is that different Chapters shouldn't share transports - just like SW and BA are limited in how they use each others transports.But that has literally NO basis in the rules as written at all. They changed the rules, and the logical conclusion to that change is that it SHOULD apply to different Vanilla Chapters, too - but that's purely based on the Errata/FAQ.

There's 6 billion different versions of common sense on the planet. In other words, there's no such thing as common sense.

Traditio wrote:
P. 189 of the current codex flat out says that different SM chapters can ally with each other in a given army, but that the same chapter cannot ally with itself.

Therefore, different chapters = different armies = different factions.

It's that simple.

Again: "We need to use a little common sense."

No, it doesn't. You even quoted it (though missed a capitalization with it).

ALLIED DETACHMENTS
If your Primary Detachment has the Space Marines Faction, you can take an Allied Detachment (see Warhammer 40,000: The Rules) with the Space Marines Faction as long as it is drawn from a different Chapter than your Primary Detachment.

Nothing about allies, just "an Allied Detachment", nor are Faction or Army ever stated. Notice how "Allied Detachment" is capitalized as a proper noun? Why define it that way when just simply "allies" may apply?

You are taking the 6th Edition codex and trying to overlay it's reasoning and judgement on to the current codex. As I said earlier, this is no different than trying to push Storm Shields as being 4++ in Melee only. Previous standards only apply when using that previous book.

Again: "We need to use a little common sense."